Author Archives: Giesela Ruehl

Stefan Wrbka on European Consumer Access to Justice Revisited

Stefan Wrbka, Associate Professor for European and Comparative Private Law at Kyushu University, has authored a book on “European Consumer Access to Justice Revisited”.  Published by Cambridge University Press it will be out in late November.

More information is available on the publisher’s website. The official abstract reads as follows:

European Consumer Access to Justice Revisited takes into account both procedural and substantive law questions in order to give the term ‘access to justice’ an enhanced meaning. Specifically, it analyses developments and recent trends in EU consumer law and aims to evaluate their potential for increasing consumer confidence in the cross-border market. Via a critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the means initiated at the EU level, the author highlights possible detriments to the cross-border business-to-consumer (B2C) market. To remedy this, he introduces an alternative method of creating a legal framework that facilitates B2C transactions in the EU – ‘access to justice 2.0′.

Kurt Lipstein: Collection of Essays

Peter Feuerstein and Heinz-Peter152062_461433f5ec Mansel have edited a “Collection of Essays” by Kurt Lipstein, a German law professor who emigrated from Germany to England in 1934.

The English abstract reads as follows:

This collection contains a selection of essays by the late Professor Kurt Lipstein, who emigrated from Germany to Cambridge in 1934. It focuses on his central works on the general principles of private international law, which are characterized by his comparative approach and his attention to the many relationships between conflicts of law and questions of public international and European law. It includes Lipstein’s first studies of the conflict of laws as well as his powerful Hague lecture on the basic principles of private international law and his influencing articles on the development of the conflict of laws through international courts and arbitral tribunals.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

Bareiß on Conflicts of Obligations in the Transnational Taking of Evidence

Andreas Bareiß has authored a book on conflicts of obligations in the transnational taking of evidence (“Pflichtenkollisionen im transnationalen Be152817_6243ccbac2weisverkehr. Offenbarungspflichten im Zivilprozessrecht der USA und Offenbarungsverbote nach deutschem und europäischem Recht”). The book is in German. The English abstract reads as follows:

Andreas Bareiß studies the legal position of German companies involved in an American pretrial discovery which are caught in a dilemma between disclosure obligations in accordance with the American law of civil procedure and the prohibition of disclosure in accordance with German and European law.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

English High Court Rules on Art. 4 Rome II Regulation

The English High Court has recently rendered an insightful and thought provoking decision on the application of Art. 4 II and III of the Rome II Regulation  (Winrow v. Hemphill, [2014] EWHC 3164). The case revolved around a road traffic accident that had taken place in Germany in late 2009. The (first) defendant, a UK national, had driven the car, while the claimant, likewise a UK national, had been sitting in the rear. As a result of the accident, caused by the (first) defendant’s negligence, the claimant suffered injury and initiated proceedings for damages in England.

The court had to determine the applicable law in accordance with Art. 4 of the Rome II Regulation. What made the choice of law analysis complicated were the following – undisputed – facts (quote from the judgment):

  • At the time of the accident, 16 November 2009, the Claimant was living in Germany, having moved there in January 2001 with her husband who was a member of HM Armed Services. Germany was not the preferred posting of the Claimant’s husband. It was his second choice. He had four separate three year postings in Germany.
  • Since the Claimant’s husband was due to leave the army in February 2014 after twenty-two years’ service he would have returned to England one and a half to two years before that date to undertake re-settlement training. It was always their intention to return to live in England.
  • Whilst in Germany, the Claimant and her family lived on a British Army base where schools provided an English education. The Claimant’s eldest son remained in England at boarding school when the Claimant’s husband was posted to Germany. Their three other children were at school in Germany.
  • The Claimant was employed while in Germany on a full-time basis as an Early Years Practitioner by Service Children’s Education. This is a UK Government Agency.
  • The Claimant and her husband returned to live in England in June 2011, earlier than planned. Her husband left the Army in August 2013.
  • The First Defendant is a UK national. She was also an army wife. Her husband served with the Army in Germany. She had been in Germany for between eighteen months and two years before the accident. She returned to England soon afterwards.

Against this backdrop, the court had to decide whether to apply German law as law of the place of the tort (Art. 4 I  Rome II) or English law as law of the common habitual residence of the parties (Art. 4 II Rome II) or as law of the manifestly more closer connection (Art. 4 III Rome II).  After a detailed discussion of the matter Justice Slade DBE held that that German law applied because England was not the common habitual residence of the parties at the time of the accident. Nor was the case manifestly more closely connected with England than with Germany:

“41. The Claimant had been living and working in Germany for eight and a half years by the time of the accident. She was living there with her husband. Three of their children were at school in Germany. The family remained living in Germany for a further eighteen months after the accident. There was no evidence that during this time the family had a house in England. The residence of the Claimant in Germany was established for a considerable period of time. The fact that the Claimant and her family were living in Germany because the Army had posted her husband there and that it was not his first choice does not render her presence there involuntary. He and his family were living in Germany because of his job. The situation of the Claimant in Germany was similar to that of the spouses of other workers posted abroad. This is not an unusual situation. Having regard to the length of stay in the country, its purpose and the establishing of a life there – three children were in an army run school in Germany and the Claimant worked at an army base school – in my judgment the habitual residence of the Claimant at the time of her accident was Germany. When the Claimant came to live in England in 2011 her status changed and she became habitually resident here. However, the family’s intention to return to live in England after the Claimant’s husband’s posting in Germany came to an end did not affect her status in November 2009. The Claimant has not established that the law of the tort indicated by Article 4(1), German law, has been displaced by Article 4(2).

42. The burden is on the Claimant to establish that the effect of Article 4(1) is displaced by Article 4(3). The standard required to satisfy Article 4(3) is high. The party seeking to disapply Article 4(1) or 4(2) has to show that the tort is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated by Article 4(1) or 4(2).

43. The circumstances to be taken into account are not specified in Article 4(3). As does Miss Kinsler, I respectfully take issue with the exclusion by Mr Dickinson from the circumstances to be taken into account under Article 4(3) of the country in which the accident and damage occurred or the common habitual residence at the time of the accident of the Claimant and the person claimed to be liable. That these are determinative factors for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) does not exclude them from consideration under 4(3). All the circumstances of the case are to be taken into account under Article 4(3). If the only relevant circumstance were the country where the damage occurred or the common habitual residence of the Claimant and the tortfeasor the issue of the proper law of the tort would be determined by Article 4(1) or 4(2). However, these factors are not excluded as being amongst others to be considered under Article 4(3). Further, under Article 4(2), habitual residence is to be considered at the time when the damage occurs. Preamble (17) to Rome II makes clear that the country in which damage occurs, which is the subject of Article 4(1), is the country where the injury was sustained. However, under Article 4(3), the habitual residence of the Claimant at the time when consequential loss is suffered may also be relevant.

44. Mr Chapman rightly acknowledged that one system of law governs the entire tortious claim. Different systems do not govern liability and quantum. In Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 WLR 1539, the issue was whether damages for personal injury caused by negligent driving in New South Wales Australia should be calculated according to the law applicable in accordance with the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’) or whether it is a question of procedure which fell to be determined in accordance with the lex fori, English law. Considering factors which connect the tort with respective countries, in section 12(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, a provision similar to Article 4(3), Waller LJ in observed at paragraph 12:

“…the identification is of factors that connect the tort with the respective countries, not the issue or issues with the respective countries.”

The majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, Waller LJ dissenting, was overruled in the House of Lords. The obiter observations of Waller LJ on the factors which connect the tort rather than separate issues with a particular country were undisturbed on appeal.

45. I do not accept the contention by Mr Chapman that the circumstances to be taken into account in considering Article 4(3) will vary depending upon the issues to be determined and, as I understood his argument, the stage reached in the proceedings. Nor do I accept the submission that “the centre of gravity” of the tort when liability was conceded and only damages were to be considered depended upon circumstances relevant to or more weighted towards that issue. As was held by Owen J at paragraph 46 of Jacobs:

“…the question under Art 4(3) is not whether the right to compensation is manifestly more connected to England and Wales, but whether the tort/delict has such a connection.”

The “centre of gravity” referred to in the Commission Proposal for Rome II and by Flaux J in Fortress Value in considering Article 4(3) is the centre of gravity of the tort not of the damage and consequential losscaused by the tort.

46. Whilst I do not accept the argument advanced by Mr Chapman that different weight is to be attributed to relevant factors depending on the stage reached in the litigation, since there is no temporal limitation on these factors, a court will make an assessment on the relevant facts as they stand at the date of their decision. The balance of factors pointing to country A rather than country B may change depending upon the time but not the stage in the proceedings at which the court makes its assessment. At the time of the accident both the claimant and the defendants may be habitually resident in country A and by the time of the court’s decision, in country B. At the time of the accident it may have been anticipated that all loss would be suffered in country A but by the date of the assessment it is known that current and future loss will be suffered in country B.

47. There is some difference of opinion as to whether the circumstances to be taken into account in considering Article 4(3) are limited to those connected with the tort and do not include those connected with the consequences of the tort. It may also be said that the tort and the consequences of the tort are treated as distinct in Article 4. Article 4(1) refers separately to the tort, to damage and to the indirect consequences of the “event”. Article 4(2) refers to “damage”. Accordingly it could be said that the reference in Article 4(3) to tort but not also to damage or indirect consequences indicates that it is only factors showing a manifestly closer connection of the tort, but not the damage direct or indirect, caused by or consequential on it, which are relevant.

48. Section 12 of the 1995 Act considered in Harding, whilst differing from Article 4(3) by including reference to the law applicable to issues in the case was otherwise to similar effect in material respects to Article 4(3). Section 12(2) provides:

“The factors that may be taken into account as connecting a tort or delict with a country for the purposes of this section include, in particular, factors relating to the parties, to any of the events which constitute the tort or delict in question, or to any of the circumstances or consequences of those events.”

Applying section 12, Elias J, as he then was, in deciding whether the law of the place of the motor vehicle accident should be displaced, took into account “the fact that the consequences of the accident will be felt in England” [34]. This approach was not doubted on appeal CA [17]. In Stylianou, Sir Robert Nelson adopted a similar approach when considering Article 4(3) which does not expressly include the consequences of the tortious events as a relevant factor in determining whether the general rules as to the applicable law of the tort are displaced. The Judge observed that there are powerful reasons for saying that the Claimant’s condition in England is a strong connecting factor with this country. [83].

49. Including the consequences of a tort as a factor to be taken into account in considering Article 4(3) has received endorsement from writers on the subject. Mr Dickinson writes in The Rome II Regulation at paragraph 4.86:

“The reference in Article 4(3) to ‘the tort/delict’ (in the French text, ‘fait dommageable‘) should be taken to refer in combination to the event giving rise to the damage and all of the consequences of that event, including indirect consequences.”

Further the authors of Dicey write at paragraph 35-032:

“Thus it would seem that the event or events which give rise to damage, whether direct or indirect, could be circumstances relevantly considered under Art 4(3), as could factors relating to the parties, and possibly also factors relating to the consequences of the event or events.”

50. Whilst the answer to the question is by no means clear, I will adopt the approach suggested as possible in Dicey, as correct by Mr Dickinson and adopted by Sir Robert Nelson. Accordingly the link of the consequences of the tort to a particular country will be considered as a relevant factor for the purposes of Article 4(3).

51. Unlike Articles 4(1) and 4(2), Article 4(3) contains no temporal limitation on the factors to be taken into account. If, as in this case, the claimant and the defendant were habitually resident in country A at the time of the accident but in country B at the time the issue of whether the exception provided by Article 4(3) applied, in my judgment both circumstances may be taken into account. Similarly, if at the time of the accident it was anticipated that the Claimant would remain in country A and all her consequential loss would be incurred there, but by the time the issue of whether the exception provided by Article 4(3) applied, she had moved to country B and was incurring loss there, in my judgment both circumstances may be taken into account in deciding whether in all the circumstances the tort is manifestly more closely connected with country B than with country A.

52. The European Commission recognised in their proposal for Rome II that the “escape clause” now in Article 4(3) would generate a degree of unforeseeability as to the applicable law. In my judgment that unforeseeability includes not only the factors taken into account but also that the nature and importance of those factors may depend upon the time at which a court makes an assessment under Article 4(3) in deciding whether there is a “manifestly closer connection” of the tort with country B rather than country A. The court making a decision under Article 4(3) undertakes a balancing exercise, weighing factors to determine whether there is a manifestly closer connection between the tort and country B rather than country A whose law would otherwise apply by reason of Article 4(1) or 4(2).

53. Whilst Mr Chapman relied principally on the country where consequential loss is being suffered and the current habitual residence of the Claimant and the First Defendant, I also consider other factors raised by counsel in determining whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the tort is manifestly more closely connected with England than with Germany.

54. In my judgment the common United Kingdom nationality of the Claimant and the First Defendant is a relevant consideration. Waller LJ at paragraph 18 of Harding considered the nationality of the Defendant to a road traffic accident claim to be relevant to determining the applicable law of the tort under the similar provisions of section 12 of the 1995 Act.

55. Although there is no United Kingdom law or English nationality in my judgment that does not, as was contended by Miss Kinsler, prevent the United Kingdom nationality of those involved in the tort being relevant to whether English law applies. For example the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 implementing Directive 2000/26/EC of 16 May 2000, the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive, referred in Regulation 13(1)(i) to the United Kingdom as “an EEA state”. Regulation 12(4) specified the law applicable to loss and damage as that “under the law applying in that part of the United Kingdom in which the injured party resided at the date of the accident”. Article 25 of Rome II provides that:

“Where a State comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations, each territorial unit shall be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this Regulation.”

I take into account the United Kingdom nationality of the Claimant and the First Defendant at the time of the accident and now, when the issue is being determined, as a factor indicating a connection of the tort with English law.

56. That the Claimant and the First Defendant are now habitually resident in England is, in my judgment in the circumstances of this case, relevant to determining the system of law to which the tort has a greater connection. However, I view the weight to be given to this factor in the light of the Claimant’s habitual residence in Germany for about eight and a half years by the time of the accident. The Claimant was not a short-term visitor to Germany. She had established a life there with her husband for the time being.

57. I take account of the fact that the Claimant remained in Germany for a further eighteen months after the accident during which time she received a significant amount of medical treatment for her injuries including, in June 2010, an operation to remove a prolapsed disc. The Claimant states that between 15 and 25 March 2011 she spent just under two weeks in a German hospital for pain management. In April and May 2011 she had further treatment in Germany for the pain. Some of the injuries she suffered after the accident, neck and shoulder pains and pain in her stomach, resolved whilst she was in Germany.

58. Article 15 of Rome II makes it clear that the applicable law determined by its provisions applies not only to liability but also to:

“15(c) the existence, the nature and the assessment of damage or the remedy claimed.”

Whilst recital (33) states that when quantifying damages for personal injury in road traffic accident cases all the relevant actual circumstances of the Claimant including actual losses and costs of after-care should be taken into account by the court determining the claim of a person who suffered the accident in a State other than that where they were habitually resident, as Sir Robert Nelson observed at paragraph 78 of Stylianou, the recital cannot override the terms of Article 4.

59. In my judgment “all the circumstances” of the case relevant to determining whether a tort is manifestly more closely connected with country B than country A can include where the greater part of loss and damage is suffered. Where, as in this case, causation and quantum of loss are in issue, at this stage the location of the preponderance of loss may be difficult to ascertain. However, weight is to be given to the assertion by the Claimant that she continued to suffer pain after she and her husband returned to England in June 2011. She attended a pain clinic in Oxford and received treatment. She states that as a result of her pain and the effects of the accident she had become depressed. The continuing pain and suffering and medical treatment is a factor connecting the tort with England. So is the contention that loss of earnings has been and will be suffered in England.

60. The vehicle driven by the First Defendant was insured and registered in England. Whilst a factor to be taken into account, as was observed in Harding at paragraph 18, where the motor vehicle involved in the accident was insured is not a strong connecting factor. Nor is where the vehicle was registered.

61. In Stylianou, Sir Robert Nelson considered that the continued and active pursuit of proceedings in Western Australia was an important factor to take into consideration under Article 4(3). The pursuit of proceedings by the Claimant in the English courts is taken into account in this case, however it is not a strong connecting factor. The choice of forum does not determine the law of the tort.

62. Factors weighing against displacement of German law as the applicable law of the tort by reason of Article 4(1) are that the road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the First Defendant took place in Germany. The Claimant sustained her injury in Germany. At the time of the accident both the Claimant and the First Defendant were habitually resident there. The Claimant had lived in Germany for about eight and a half years and remained living there for eighteen months after the accident.

63. Under Article 4(3) the court must be satisfied that the tort is manifestly more closely connected with English law than German law. Article 4(3) places a high hurdle in the path of a party seeking to displace the law indicated by Article 4(1) or 4(2). Taking into account all the circumstances, the relevant factors do not indicate a manifestly closer connection of the tort with England than with Germany. The law indicated by Article 4(1) is not displaced by Article 4(3). The law applicable to the claim in tort is therefore German law.”

A discussion of the case can be found here.

Research Projects on EU Law and ECJ Case Law in Civil Matters

Researchers from Latvia (Inga Kacevska, Baiba Rudevska, Arnis Buka, Students Martins Dambergs and Aleksandrs Fillers) are currently conducting two EU research projects (Project JUST/2013/JCIV/AG/4691):

1. “The European Court of Justice and the impact of its case law in the area of civil justice on national judicial and administrative authorities”. The aim of this research project is to analyse the influence and practical application of the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in civil matters on decisions and judgments of domestic courts and on national legal acts. The researchers will identify the problems and offer solutions and proposals for a more effective and more frequent application of ECJ case law by domestic courts and authorities.

2. “Effective adoption, transposition, implementation and application of the European Union legislation in the area of civil justice”. Within this project the researchers will develop Guidelines and Recommendations that will give an overview whether there is an effective control of transposition and implementation of EU law in the field of civil justice. It will also suggest more effective methods of implementation and transposition of EU legislation in domestic legislation.

In the framework of both projects the research team will interview practitioners (judges, attorneys), state officials, academics and other lawyers. Any person working in the field of international cooperation in civil matters in the EU is invited to participate by answering the web-Questionnaire. The Questionnaire is available here and will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Participation is entirely anonymous. The Questionnaire will remain open until 1 December 2014.

Conference on the Brussels I Recast

On 28 and 29 November 2014, the Verona University Department of Law will host a conference on “International Litigation in Europe : the Brussels I Recast as a panacea?”. The conference will take place in Verona. The conference language will be English. Registration is possible via email: chiara.zamboni_01@univr.it

More information is available here. The programme reads as follows:

Friday, November 28, 2014

  • 13.30 Registration
  • 14.00 Welcome and opening remarks
    Prof. Gottardi, University of Verona
    Prof. Ferrari, University of Verona/NYU
  • 14.10 Greetings
    Avv. Cristiano, AIJA National Representative, Italy

I Session: The Recast as a political compromise

  • 14.20 Goals of the Recast
    Prof. Pocar, University of Milan
  • 14.45 The (still limited) territorial scope of application of the new Regime
    Prof. Carbone, University of Genoa
  • 15.10 The arbitration exception
    Prof. Radicati di Brozolo, University of Milan
  • 15.35 Discussion

II Session: The special and mandatory rules on jurisdiction

  • 15.50 A new head of jurisdiction in relation to the recovery of cultural objects
    Prof. Gebauer, University of Tübingen
  • 16.15 Enhancing protection for the weaker parties: the jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment
    Prof. Cafari Panico, University of Milan)
  • 16.40 The consumer’s jurisdictional privilege in the ECJ case law
    Prof. Rühl, University of Jena
  • 17.05 Discussion
  • 17.20 Coffee Break

III Session: Party autonomy and choice-of-court agreements

  • 17.50 The role of party autonomy in the allocation of jurisdiction in contractual matters
    Prof. Mankowski, University of Hamburg
  • 18.15 Towards a broadened effectiveness of choice-of-court agreements in the European judicial area?
    Prof. Queirolo, University of Genoa)
  • 18.40 The enforcement of choice-of-court agreements in Europe: is there any consistency in case law?
    Prof. Villata, University of Milan)
  • 19.05 Discussion
  • 19.20 End of first conference day
  • 20.30 Dinner

Saturday, November 29, 2014

IV Session: Coordination of legal proceedings and provisional measures

  • 09.00 The end of torpedoes?
    Prof. Nielsen, University of Copenhagen
  • 09.25 Provisional measures in the new Regime
    Prof. Garcimartín Alférez, Autónoma University of Madrid
  • 09.50 Discussion

V Session: Cross-border recognition and enforcement

  • 10.05 The free circulation of judgments and the abolition of exequatur
    Prof. Pfeiffer, University of Heidelberg
  • 10.30 The exceptions to recognition and enforcement
    Prof. Fumagalli, University of Milan
  • 10.55 Discussion
  • 11.10 Coffee break

VI Session: The Brussels I Recast in the International Arena

  • 11.40 The Brussels I Recast and the Lugano Convention: which rules for the outer world?
    Prof. Malatesta, Carlo Cattaneo University
  • 12.05 The Brussels I Recast and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: convergences and divergences
    Dr. Ragno, University of Verona
  • 12.30 The Brussels I Recast and the Unified Patent Court Agreement: towards an enhanced patent litigation system?
    Prof. Marongiu Buonaiuti, University of Macerata
  • 12.55 Discussion

Closing remarks

  • 13.10 Closing Remarks
    Prof. Pocar, University of Milan
  • 13.30 End of the conference

Reminder: Conference on Minimum Standards in European Civil Procedure Law

As mentioned earlier on this blog, Matthias Weller from EBS Law School and Christoph Althammer (now) from the University of Regensburg will host a conference on minimum standards in European Civil Procedure in Wiesbaden on 14 and 15 November 2014.  Further information is available on the conference website. Registration is still open.

The conference language will be German. 

The programme reads as follows:

 Friday, 14 November, 2 – 4 p.m.:

Welcome remarks
Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, EBS Law School

Minimum standards und core procedural principles from a German law perspective: European Convention on Human Rights/German constitutional law/German national law
Prof. Dr. Christoph Althammer, University of Regensburg

Minimum standards und core procedural principles from a French law perspective: European Convention on Human Rights/French constitutional law/French national law
Prof. Dr. Frédérique Ferrand, Université Jean Moulin, Lyon

Friday, 14 November, 5 – 7 p.m.:

Minimum standards und core procedural principles from a UK law perspective: European Convention on Human Rights/UK constitutional law/UK national law
Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, EBS Law School

Transnational synthesis: ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Civil Procedure
Prof. Dr. Thomas Pfeiffer, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg

Friday, 14 November, 7 p.m.:

Panel Discussion

***

Saturday, 15 November, 9 – 11 a.m.:

Minimum standards and procedural principles in criminal law proceedings under European influence
Prof. Dr. Michael Kubiciel, University of Cologne

Minimum standards and procedural principles in administrative law proceedings under European influence
Prof. Dr. Andreas Glaser, University of Zurich

Saturday, 15 November, 11.30 a.m. – 1.30 p.m.:

Minimum standards and procedural principles in public and private antitrust law proceedings under European influence
Prof. Dr. Friedemann Kainer, University of Mannheim

Minimum standards and procedural principles in intellectual property law under European influence
Prof. Dr. Mary-Rose McGuire, University of Mannheim

Saturday, 15 November, 2.30 – 3.30 p.m.:

European law synthesis: Minimum standards and procedural principles in the aquis communautaire/ conclusions for European Principles of Civil Procedure
Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess, Director of the Max Planck Institute Luxemburg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law

Saturday, 15 November, 3.30 p.m.:

Panel Discussion

 

Volume on German Case Law on Private International Law

The Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law has released the latest volume of its annual series on German case law in matters of private International law (“Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiet des Internationalen Privatrechts”). Published by Mohr Siebeck it contains all private international law cases decided by German courts in 2012.

More information is available here.

Volume on Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe

Jürgen Basedow and Knut B. Pißler, both from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, have edited a book on “Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe”. The book has been published by Mohr Siebeck.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Over the last decades, private international law has become the target of intense codification efforts. Inspired by the stimulating initiatives taken by some European countries, by the Brussels Convention and the Rome Convention, numerous countries in other regions of the world started to enact comprehensive legislation in the field. Among them are Taiwan and mainland China. Both adopted statutes on private international law in 2010. In light of the rising significance of the mutual economic and societal relations between the jurisdictions involved and of the legal innovations laid down in the new instruments, the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law convened scholars to present the conflict rules adopted in Europe, in mainland China and in Taiwan across a whole range of private law subjects. This book collects the papers of the conference and presents them to the public, together with English translations of the acts of Taiwan and mainland China.

Survey of contents:
Part 1: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Recent Legislation Jin Huang: New Perspectives on Private International Law in the People’s Republic of China – Rong-Chwan Chen: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Taiwan – Stefania Bariatti: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Recent EU Legislation

Part 2: Selected Problems of General Provisions
Weizuo Chen: Selected Problems of General Provisions in Private International Law: The PRC Perspective – Rong-Chwan Chen: General Provisions in the Taiwanese Private International Law Enactment 2010 – Jürgen Basedow: The Application of Foreign Law – Comparative Remarks on the Practical Side of Private International Law

Part 3: Property Law
Huanfang Du : The Choice of Law for Property Rights in Mainland China: Progress and Imperfection – Yao-Ming Hsu: Property Law in Taiwan- Louis d’Avout: Property Law in Europe

Part 4: Contractual Obligations
Qisheng He: Recent Developments of New Chinese Private International Law With Regard to Contracts – David J.?W. Wang: The Revision of Taiwan’s Choice-of-law Rules in Contracts – Pedro A. De Miguel Asensio: The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. The Rome I Regulation in Comparative Perspective

Part 5: Non-Contractual Obligations Guoyong Zou: The Latest Developments in China’s Conflicts Law for Non-contractual Obligations – En-Wei Lin: New Private International Law Legislation in Taiwan: Negotiorum Gestio, Unjust Enrichment and Tort – Peter Arnt Nielsen: Non-Contractual Obligations in the European Union: The Rome II Regulation

Part 6: Personal Status (Family Law/Succession Law)
Yujun Guo: Personal Status in Chinese Private International Law Reform – Hua-Kai Tsai: Recent Developments in Taiwan’s Private International Law on Family Matters – Katharina Boele-Woelki: International Private Law in China and Europe:A Comparison of Conflict-of-law Rules Regarding Family and Succession Law

Part 7: Company Law
Tao Du: The New Chinese Conflict-of-law Rules for Legal Persons: Is the Middle Way Feasible? – Wang-Ruu Tseng: Private International Law in Taiwan – Company Law – Marc-Philippe Weller: Companies in Private International Law – A European and German Perspective

Part 8: International Arbitration
Song Lu: China – A Developing Country in the Field of International Arbitration – Carlos Esplugues Mota: International Commercial Arbitration in the EU and the PRC: A Tale of Two Continents or 28+3 Legal Systems

Further information ist available here.

Kühn on Imbalance in Joint and Several Debt in Private International Law

Anna-Lisa Kühn has authored a book on the imbalance in joint and several debt in private international law  (“Die gestörte Gesamtschuld im Internationalen Privatrecht. Am Beispiel einer Spaltung des Mehrpersonenverhältnisses zwischen deutschem und englischem Recht”). The book is written in German and has been published by Mohr Siebeck.

The abstract reads as follows:

Anna-Lisa Kühn analyzes a situation in which a creditor has a claim against several debtors whose obligations are governed by different legal systems and who would be liable for the same claim could one of them not rely on an exemption from liability, the impact of which is assessed differently by the legal systems involved. She shows how this should be treated under the Rome I and Rome II Regulations.

More information is available here.